Good News: Shirley Sherrod is no longer racist! Bad News: NAACP still is racist!

The “news” is that a full tape of Shirley Sherrod giving a speech to the NAACP shows that though she initially discriminated against a white farmer because of his race, towards the end of her dealing with him she stopped discriminating against him and actually put forth her best effort to help him. Plus, this was a lesson that she learned years ago so presumably she is no discriminates against people based upon their race.

Her lesson learned? She learned that this isn’t about a struggle between races, it’s a struggle between rich and poor. Oh, just fucking swell! Now she no longer discriminates against white people, she discriminates against those whom she considers “rich,” whatever the hell being “rich” means. I sure hope that she never has official governmental dealings with me! Even though my family and friends know I’m not rich, she might mistakenly conclude that I am. Sorry, bitch: I don’t want any governmental employee discriminating against anybody, be they rich or poor, black or white, man or woman. Good riddance, and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

But what is really news is that the NAACP, at least those in attendance at her speech, still are racist! She told the story of how she mistreated a white farmer strictly because he was white, and sent him to “one of his kind” a white lawyer for help. None of those listening knew in advance that she would eventually learn her lesson and actually help the white farmer. As she was saying how she discriminated against him based on his race, none of them condemned her. Instead, it was similar to listening to a black preacher on T.V. in front of his black congregation (minus the “amen”s). They laughed.

That speech [relevant portion begins at 17:33] was given just a few months ago. That means that those in attendance, all members of the NAACP, are still racists. And the NAACP claims that the Tea Party is raaaaacist, without any proof whatsoever.

Now, some astute readers might be thinking that those listening were just being polite. I say bullshit. Imagine if it was a white Republican giving that speech before them and she was talking about discriminating against a black farmer solely because of his race. You think that those racists would sit there and laugh about it?

If you are white, and always wondered what a typical black person thinks about you and says about you behind your back, this is a perfect opportunity to learn the truth. You are not “their kind.” They don’t have any obligation to treat you fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. The only difference between the NAACP and “The New Black Panthers” is that the latter are open and honest about how they feel, while the former just shares their true feelings when they think Whitey will never hear about it.

Meanwhile, 95% of blacks still support the incompetent President, strictly because he is 1/2 black, while the rest of society recognizes that he is an incompetent boob.

> Imagine if it was a white Republican giving that speech before them and she was talking about discriminating against a black farmer solely because of his race. You think that those racists would sit there and laugh about it?

I call shenanigans. See Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond. Yeah, they wouldn’t laugh about it, they would elect them to the senate.

Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod says she will sue a conservative blogger who posted an edited video of her making racially tinged remarks last week.
Sherrod made the announcement Thursday in San Diego at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention.

Defamation law clearly puts Breitbart in a tough position. He deliberately aired a video that was edited in a way to put Sherrod in a very bad light. Breitbart even said on Fox News that the purpose of the tape was to show that racism existed in the NAACP, even though the speech Sherrod gave was precisely the opposite — it was about overcoming prejudice and stereotypes. Before the tape, Sherrod was not a public figure for whom a higher legal threshold of “actual malice” would be required, though in this case it would be hard to say that malice or a reckless disregard to the truth wasn’t present…~Attoney Michael Yaki~

As a lawyer who has handled a couple of defamation cases, but who does not claim to be an expert in the matter (they were “small” cases), I do not think that she has a case. He did not make her say things that she did not say. He merely left out other exculpatory things that she also said. You can’t sue somebody for selectively editing what you say, otherwise newspapers would be sued all the time.

This is not a case where he claimed that she said something that she did not see, she actually said those things. Ever hear the adage that “truth is an absolute defense” to defamation?

Besides, she is “a public person” and under the case of “New York Times v. Sullivan” she is required to show “actual malice” motivated Breitbart to air the tape. He’s claimed from the beginning that somebody sent him the tape already edited. He can not have had malice if he never knew what the “context” was.

I will tell you very confidently that unless that black bitch wants to shell out her own money to fund a lawsuit, no lawyer will handle it on a contingency fee basis. Now, I would not put it past that bastard Soros to fund such law suit, or some similar commie front group. But no self-respecting competent lawyer would take it on. The facts AND the law are against her.

I suspect that Brietbart already knows all this shit. You don’t get to be a big shot in the publishing business without having high-priced legal advice.

So nice try, Gramps, but Sherrod is just running her mouth off again. I got a hundred bucks says no lawyer ever files a lawsuit on her behalf against Breitbart if you care to take me up on it.

However; one Attoney, Michael Yaki at City Brights…continues in this manner:

”…Fox, by way of offering Breitbart a forum, may be similarly at risk. Under the “republication” doctrine, Fox may be as liable as Breitbart for recklessly running (and rerunning) the doctored footage.

There is no excuse for those liberals who so quickly threw Sherrod under the bus without the benefit of hearing her side of the story. But while inexcusable, the fact remains that but for Andrew Breitbart, who deliberately manufactured this story and dressed it up with racist overtones, people today would have no idea who Shirley Sherrod is or what she does. And she’d still be at her old job.

Sometimes in the law you get the perfect test case. Shirley Sherrod’s high tech railroading by Breitbart offers an unprecedented opportunity to make an example of the right wing’s repeated distortion and discoloration of the facts. At the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights I’ve watched my right-wing colleagues and their media friends misrepresent and inflame the paltry facts that constitute the New Black Panther Party investigation. But while my conservative colleagues flail around like psychotic berserkers in the Panther proceedings, they have yet to cause collateral damage to anything but the truth. That is not the case with Ms. Sherrod, who suffered public vilification, private harassment and humiliation, and who was pressured to leave her job.

If it’s all the same to you JD…I’m gonna keep my wallet in me pocket fer the time being…”developing” as Drudge would say!

Well Gramps, as I pointed out on my blog when I linked to this “edited” video of Mrs. Sherrod, I believe Sherrod was a shill for the NAACP and the lefty/liberals. I thinked there looks like a smidge too much coincidence between all the players in this charade. In otherwords, it looked like a “set-up” to me.

Even before the last election, the far left has been looking for an excuse to shut down dissenting opinion. What better way than to force a lawsuit and then load the bench with the right judge. That way, they could get their “fairness doctrine” with out putting it to the House and Senate for a vote. IF there is a case brought before the bench, which ever way the decision goes, it WILL end up in the Supreme Court. I aint no lawyer, but a little bit of common sense tells me that nothing good could come of this thing going to court for anyone.

”…looks like a smidge too much coincidence between all the players in this charade. In otherwords, it looked like a “set-up” to me.

“Set-up”…whose set-up…?

Ms Sherrod, made that speech weeks or months before “Andy” managed to pull it out of his backside. Besides; who edited the clip for Andy and Fox, the NAACP…?

Gimme a break, already…!

Oh and Mike…as far as that “fairness doctrine” goes…you oughta’ spend a lot more time perfecting yer “back swing” than listening to those motor-mouth, aire-heads, Limpbough, Hannity and Levin…
Hehehe…!

Gramps, BEFORE the “republication doctrine” applies, the statement that was republished must be actionable. It ain’t. The republication doctrine just holds me liable if I repeat your slanderous accusation.

Say you maintain that you have proof that Obama is a faggot who had one of his queer prostitutes killed in order to protect his political career (not too far-fetched many on the right would say), and I re-published that statement without checking into the facts independently.

However, just publishing a person speaking in their own words is not defamation. She said those words. At least at the time when she decided to treat the white man differently, she was a fucking racist. The fact that she supposedly repented of her ways does not change the facts that at least then she was a racist.

Ms Sherrod admitted her initial prejudice, found and realized her weakness was unacceptable and was determined to treat the “white farmer” fairly…

On that basis; Andy Breitbart only includes her initial prejudicial evaluation… but conveniently, left out, “her better understanding” of “her obligations” to all citizens, on the “cutting room” floor…

I personally, wouldn’t go on any combat patrol with Andrew Breitbart… where any of my troopers or my life was on the line…

Share This Blog

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!